2. Statement of Compliance

3. Salute to Flag

4. Roll Call

5. Open to the Public

Motion by CK; second by CW; unanimous

DOREEN EDWARDS [DE] - (1.33) Good evening. Glad that the third month of the year, you guys were able to get here. Thank you. I’ve been here Jan. and Feb. so I was looking forward to a meeting. Um, I just wanted to wish you all good luck and I hope you will continue to do what the environmental commission [EC] was commissioned to do in its inception. Um, I do want to mention though, however, that I’m not too pleased with how the agenda is. Um, it just simply says old business with nothing under it which I can understand cause you didn’t meet prior to March, but nothing under new business. So if this is what you guys post or that you have available to the public, it’s not really that informative. And um being on the board previously, we used to at least put some information down there so the public could check.

[CW]: Can I ask you a brief question? Could you identify yourself for the record.

JESSI PALADINI [JP] = [3:06] That’s one of the things I wanted to address. Jessi Paladini, Sunset Ridge. I just wanted to elaborate on what Doreen said about the agenda. And John you know that nothing I’m saying is directed at you. This agenda violates the law with regard to the Open Public Meeting Act [OPMA] and the 48-hour notification. You must publish on the agenda what’s under Old Business, what’s under New Business. You’re supposed to tell the public what business you’re conducting. To say Old Business, New Business, Land Use applications under review does not fulfill the OPMA requirement. So this is now the second month that your chairperson has violated the OPMA, OK, so you might pass that along to him. OK, secondly I don’t know what applications you were referring to but one of the things I wanted to say and John you know because you’re on the Land Use Board [LUB] and I mentioned this for the last two months at the LUB, this EC is not fulfilling its statutory obligation. It’s not something that you can do or you may do if you like. By statute you’re supposed to review applications before the LUB. We’ve had some huge ones. One of them being National Winter Activity Center. yep, which was in violation of soil conservation laws, DEP laws and township environmental laws, huge laws and that was on the agenda almost every month last year at the EC meeting, not to mention what the heck they’re doing with parking and that seems to be improved, but there again, the season is over so we don’t really know. So I don’t really understand what’s going on with that. Why are you guys not reviewing applications? Now one of the applications reviewed was the cell tower and MF went on the site inspection for that and DE was there, Dale was there and there were several concerns that came out of that site inspection, none of which he put documented and gave to the LUB. One of those concerns was that it was too close to the property next-door which is what you brought up, Dale. And it is in fact too close to the property next-door and they requested a variance. So you know, these are things you’re supposed to be doing. Um, hopefully. Question?

[unkn]: No

JP: OK

[unkn]: I’m listening

JP: Hopefully you guys are getting your feet wet. Um, Mike, you’ve been around a long time. You know what the laws are. Craig, you’ve been around even longer and I know Carol knows. OK, so the last thing I want to bring up is just something of grave concern to me. It seems that Dan Kadish and his wife, Carol Kadish, have no problem with conflicts of interest, ethical violations and defamation. And I have on my phone recorded at the end of your Jan. meeting, where Carol Kadish publicly in front of everyone who was there, defamed me and slandered me and accused me of taking money for EC meetings when I was recording sec. when there wasn’t even a quorum to have a meeting. You heard that. You’ve been on the EC for many years. Do you know of any meetings where there was no quorum, but we met anyway and I got paid for it? Well, whether or not you remember, OK, the answer is no. So what I’m going to ask Carol to do, I have a pending lawsuit right now against the Town Council and against the mayor for EC matters and Land Use matters and I’m going to demand that Carol Kadish make those meetings and that information known right now publicly or I’m going to include Carol Kadish and this EC in that lawsuit. I want to know those dates.

CK: Alright, you want

JP: Hold it, Let me get a pen then, let me get a pen.

JA: Do you, do you really want to address this now or

CW: I’m lost, I’m lost.

CK: You know what, I don’t. I will provide it to the township attorney so if you go ahead and add

JP: No, I’m not going to ask the twp. attorney

CK: 8 meetings

JP: Cause they’re not going to tell me

CK: 8 meetings.

JP: 8 meetings. You heard it, right

CK: 8 meetings

JP: 8 meetings in which there was no quorum but I got paid. What are those 8 meetings?

CK: No, I’m not going to discuss it.

CW: You really shouldn’t. No

JP: You’re not going to discuss them.

CK: No

JP: You made an accusation.

CK: I can prove it but I’m not discussing it right now.

JP: You made an accusation. First of all

?: Jessi

JP: First of all What?

CW: What does this have to do with

JP: She made an accusation at a public meeting.

CK: It was not at the meeting, it was after the meeting was over. You and I had a talk

JP: Everyone was here.

CK: Yes, you had your people and you had the recorder.

JA: The meeting was done, she was walking out

JP: Right

JA: It was

CW: We should not

JP: But it was still. Everyone was here, everyone heard it and she made that comment and I want to know what those dates are. And frankly she’s got a conflict of interest to even be discussing me when her husband is a named defendant in the lawsuit.

JA: OK

CW: Given that

JP: I’m sorry

CW: Given that, this conversation really should be over.

JP: OK, Well I’m going to be going to the town and I’m going to get that information. And if the town doesn’t give me that information

JA: It’s your right to do

JP: Then Carol Kadish becomes a defendant in that lawsuit as well. How dare you make a comment like that. That I got paid for meetings when there was no quorum. Are you gone sick in the head or something.

Close to the Public

Motion CW, Second MC, unanimous

6. LUB Liaison Report

LUB #11-16-12 plans for National Winter Activity Center have already come before LUB and JA wasn’t sure if it was too late to review them. The x-country ski project at top of Curtis Dr was approved. CW recommended reviewing whatever is not approved. Commissioners looked at plans. [see item 9] Project is for a new lodge and a ski patrol building.

A cell tower built to look like a tree was approved on route 565 by Sleepy Hollow opposite Lk. Pochung.

7. Old Business

None

8. New Business

None

9. LUB Applications Under Review

JP gave background information on application - National Winter Activity Center had agreed to pay for testing the FW2TM stream because of all the sediment entering stream due to their construction disturbance. They have not done testing. NWAC did not get their DEP permits until last Sept. They had begun construction a year before that. The previous EC called the DEP and found out that they hadn’t applied for a stream encroachment permit. NWAC is currently correcting DEP violations. NWAC refused 3 site inspections by previous EC. They also haven’t resolved conditions of approval from first project.

JA explained current project. NWAC wants to expand its ski program from 150 children to a maximum of 500. The kids will be divided among the slopes, the new lodge and the x-country ski trails. It is a winter only program that operates Thurs. - Sun with no overnight stays. The children arrive by bus, but cars are also planned. They intend on using current septic. The ski patrol building is near lower parking area and the new lodge is next to the old lodge.